At 03:19 PM 1/12/05 -0700, Steven Bethard wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:07:37 -0600, Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote: > > One case occurred to me with the discussion of strings and files, i.e., > > adapting from a string to a file. Let's say an IReadableFile, since > > files are too ambiguous. > > > > Consider the case where we are using a path object, like Jason > > Orendorff's or py.path. It seems quite reasonable and unambiguous that > > a string could be adapted to such a path object. It also seems quite > > reasonable and unambiguous that a path object could be adapted to a > > IReadableFile by opening the file at the given path. > >This strikes me as a strange use of adaptation -- I don't see how a >string can act-as-a path object, or how a path object can act-as-a >file. I see the former, but not the latter. A string certainly can act-as-a path object; there are numerous stdlib functions that take a string and then use it "as a" path object. In principle, a future version of Python might take path objects for these operations, and automatically adapt strings to them. But a path can't act as a file; that indeed makes no sense.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4